They Cracked the Code

I have a serious issue with the HR rate in this game too. It's off the reservation Home Runs if you know which cards and which park to pick. I know most of you don't agree but that is not simulation, its exploiting. I also have a major issue with RPs that pitch more innings than any starter on their team, that just ain't baseball!

For the managers who defend this and say that Strat-o-matic is simulating realistic outcomes I have a question. Have any of you ever played any of the vastly more robust baseball simulators and seen results like this game will produce with these strategies? I doubt it......

It's a game surely, I'm just not buying it as a simulator.

Let the flaming commence.

I have a serious issue with the HR rate in this game too. It's off the reservation Home Runs if you know which cards and which park to pick. I know most of you don't agree but that is not simulation, its exploiting. I also have a major issue with RPs that pitch more innings than any starter on their team, that just ain't baseball!

It's "off the reservation" home runs in Coors Field, Rangers Stadium, and Great American Ballpark in the real world as well. So, the disparity isn't extreme, and the simulation is legitimate. I explained to you in the ATG thread that SOM doesn't try to rigidly simulate the actual results and dimensions of MLB. Because it favors creative, flexible team-building over rigidly accurate representation, its simulation allows for some discrepancy between MLB results and team results in its leagues. As I said before, if that discrepancy bothers you, SOM definitely isn't for you.

Also, managers using home run parks no more "exploit" their parks than managers tailoring their teams to their pitchers', lefty, or righty parks. Like general managers of the Padres, Giants, Rangers, or Rockies, they choose players who best fit their parks; Drew Stubbs would hardly produce as well in Petco as he has in Coors. That's not "exploitation;' it's strategy.

For the managers who defend this and say that Strat-o-matic is simulating realistic outcomes I have a question. Have any of you ever played any of the vastly more robust baseball simulators and seen results like this game will produce with these strategies? I doubt it......

It's a game surely, I'm just not buying it as a simulator.

No, I haven't played those simulators you mentioned. My wife is already a bit apoplectic about my 7 teams on SOM. However, even if I did have the money and the time, they don't sound very interesting to me. Although I do enjoy the realism SOM does provide, I don't play to produce rigid simulation of actual MLB results. I don't understand why anyone would want to put creative effort into an enterprise where the result was pretty much fixed. Apparently, you do. As I said before, if you want a more creative, less stringently mimetic change of pace, stick with SOM. If you expect the extreme replication those simulators you mention provide, you should probably stick with them.

I hope that was helpful and "flame"-free.

why would the results be fixed? of course any realistic sim would have a variance built in to account for the up and down nature of baseball. they just wouldn't allow a 10 year, 10 homer a year players to hit 55, or starters to throw 150 pitches every 4th day. salary caps would allow countless combinations of players to win titles no matter what the range of random results were on any card.

ps I couldn't imagine having 7 teams, given the time I put into it. with my 4 fantasy football teams I am holding off on strat until after the new year. anyone know when the 2014 set will be out?

why would the results be fixed? of course any realistic sim would have a variance built in to account for the up and down nature of baseball. they just wouldn't allow a 10 year, 10 homer a year players to hit 55, or starters to throw 150 pitches every 4th day. salary caps would allow countless combinations of players to win titles no matter what the range of random results were on any card.

I said "pretty much fixed," and that was absolutely accurate. Overthewatch mentioned simulators that could--unlike SOM--accurately simulate MLB results and productions. If they actually do that, then the results are pretty much fixed; the players will produce numbers closely replicating their actual MLB numbers. That is pretty much fixed. If they don't actually do that, then their simulator is no more accurate than SOM's, and Overwatch's claims are invalid

If you have actually played these simulations, and Overthewatch is wrong about them, then correct him and show how they are not pretty much fixed. If you haven't, all your talk about what they do and don't allow is just speculation.

ps I couldn't imagine having 7 teams, given the time I put into it. with my 4 fantasy football teams I am holding off on strat until after the new year. anyone know when the 2014 set will be out?

Many players have 7 or more teams. Some ace diehards like DurantJerry often have 10-15. I, myself, can't imagine having 4 fantasy football teams. Managing an SOM team takes 5-10 minutes a day, max. Effectively managing a fantasy football team requires daily analysis of injury reports, daily monitoring of players being benched and chosen as starters, and scanning regular input from fantasy football experts. How you run 4 of them and focus energy on SOM and SOM forums is beyond me. You must have considerable free time.

I didn't say I had 4 good fantasy teams.

the reason I couldn't fathom 7 som teams is that the daily replay is my favorite part. running that every day along with checking out the stats and standings took at least 20 minutes. times 7 that would be at least 2 hours. my wife would be giving me grief too.

Ah, I catch you, dude.

I don't know if you've ever seen The League, but that is exactly what my good friends who play fantasy football are like. It's their daily religion. I, myself, avoid the checking the stats until the end of the season and the replays until the playoffs. I guess we all have our trade-offs.

They just wouldn't allow a 10 year, 10 homer a year players to hit 55

This all day. Why doesn't anyone else see this? This could be fixed and this game would be much better imho. The whole issue of guys doubling or tripling their career high home runs is absurd. Why won't people admit that!

They just wouldn't allow a 10 year, 10 homer a year players to hit 55

This all day. Why doesn't anyone else see this? This could be fixed and this game would be much better imho. The whole issue of guys doubling or tripling their career high home runs is absurd. Why won't people admit that!

You didn't address my previous post to you, Over. When you solicit input, you should respond to it. So, exactly how much more accurate are the simulators you mentioned than SOM's? How much discrepancy do they allow between actual MLB player results and the results they produce? You sing these simulators' praises; you should answer these questions. Some of us may convert. As I mentioned in my previous post, if they are as rigidly accurate as you claim, then the results are pretty much fixed, and they don't allow for much manager creativity. if they are not, then they are probably no more accurate than SOM's simulator that vexes you, and your complaints are invalid.

Also, SOM can't simply "fix" it's allowing "10 year, 10 homer a year players to hit 55," even though it rarely allows that. First of all, SOM's cards don't just simulate a player's yearly statistical results. They simulate the player's efficacy of how he played that year when he played; they don't restrain the game to make sure their player cards replicate his results. This both allows for inclusion of players with partial seasons and a creative manager-oriented game. This has been an integral element of SOM for over 50 years. If this bothers you so much, SOM is really not for you. Also, who cares if a player "doubles or triples" his career results. It happens in MLB all the time, so it's hardly "absurd." Check out second year players like Marcell Ozuna or rookies like Matt Shoemaker for examples.

And, to give SOM's simulator the credit it's due, the freakish results you and Dan posit are a minority, if not an anomaly. If SOM didn't reproduce results adequately reflecting MLB results for the most part, serious baseball fans just wouldn't play it...and they do. It doesn't pretty much fix it's player results--thank God--like the simulators you posit. However, it does adequately and effectively simulate MLB play.


P.s. Why exactly do you keep playing and posting about SOM when you have disdain for its integral mode of representing players and its produced results you find so inadequate? You seem so satisfied with simulators you claim produce very accurate player results. Why not stick with them when SOM's benefits aren't enough to make you look past what you see as its detractions?

[quote="l.strether
P.s. Why exactly do you keep playing and posting about SOM when you have disdain for its integral mode of representing players and its produced results you find so inadequate? [/quote]

i'll answer this from my perspective, then leave the subject alone. I keep playing because I love baseball, gaming, strategy, and just about everything else about this game. none of the players I mentioned had limited career numbers to work with. the league leader in homers in my season had 3 rl homers in the season his card was based on. strat needs to have some formula for limited ab players to lean them back towards the mean. if they won't do that they need to price the cards accordingly. the only real problem I have with it is it gives a strong advantage to the players who play the most. knowing the right cards becomes more important than knowing baseball. this model will ultimately drive new players away, while the old guard keeps riding those marginal mlb players to free replays.

the league leader in homers in my season had 3 rl homers in the season his card was based on. strat needs to have some formula for limited ab players to lean them back towards the mean. if they won't do that they need to price the cards accordingly.

Actually, they don't have to do that, and they shouldn't do that. As I have said countless time now, SOM does not aim to accurately reproduce player seasons and results, and accurately reproducing results are not why players play SOM. SOM aims to provide a creative managing/general managing experience while producing results sufficient enough to adequately resemble MLB results. And, for the utmost part, SOM does price accordingly. Players like Danny Valencia and Sonny Gray, who had excellent partial seasons, were priced quite high to accommodate their potential productivity.

the only real problem I have with it is it gives a strong advantage to the players who play the most. knowing the right cards becomes more important than knowing baseball. this model will ultimately drive new players away, while the old guard keeps riding those marginal mlb players to free replays.

I'm surprised you don't know this, but almost all games of any kind give strong advantage to the players who play the most. Outside of some draconian socialist system making all players equal, this is the reality of games and sports. And SOM always has and always will favor players who know the cards better than those who know just know baseball. It's a game; it's not an affirmer of baseball fans' particularly degree of knowledge. Yes, the newbies will come in, pick the players with the best seasons and lose to those who picked the best cards. They then learn that you go for the best cards instead, and they learn the cards. This is what all games do, they require their players to learn its rules, elements, and nuances, and then they reward those players who do.

And finally, SOM might be more initially appealing to newbies if it radically changed itself to appease them. However, that would just ruin everything integrally excellent about SOM, and those newbies (and vets) would soon lose
interest in its degraded form.